Talk:Helstrom (TV series)

Is this still part of the MCU?

Besides the lack of a Marvel logo, as well as sources saying there are no MCU connections, including from the showerunner. Is it still appropriate to say the show is part of the MCU? - Richiekim (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In the EW article, Paul Zbyszewski said: "We are siloed off [from the MCU]". The article still lists Helstrom in the same group as other MCU-Marvel TV shows: "...which purposefully lacks the ownership signifier "Marvel's" that every other show in the universe carries." YgorD3 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better way we can handle it though? Because it's like barely part of it, in-universe reasons not withstanding. Maybe we transition to more "related" status rather than fully visible in tables and group articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. YgorD3 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that would be the best course of action. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok here are my suggestions. For this article:

• Remove the MCU TV series link from the infobox
• Move the sentence in the first paragraph about "It tells a standalone story within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" to the second production paragraph, with wording adjusted how it started as a MCU show, but shifted away from that.
• Change "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section to "Relationship to the Marvel Cinematic Universe"

For the MCU nav box:

• Switch the row heading from AitF to "Related" and put AitF in the row with Helstrom

For the list of TV series:

• Remove the table and subsection under Marvel Television
• Move the prose to a new level 2 heading after Marvel Studios called "Related"

For the TV series actor list:

• Remove Helstrom from it and make the series a "See also" link

For the Adventure into Fear article

• Not sure at the moment, but that should probably be reformatted.

In other tangential articles like the Marvel Television and list of television series based on Marvel Comics, maybe we make the notes say "Related to the MCU" with this EW link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever and Adamstom.97: You both are some of the other top editors of this article. Do you have any thoughts on the situation as a whole, and then my proposed changes here and on related articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I agree with all your proposed changes for this article and related articles as I believe the series is more of "related to the MCU" than full-blown share in-universe based on the reliable source above. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree that the significance of it being only loosely connected to the larger MCU needs to be noted more clearly, however, to say the series is not within the MCU at all is a bit of a stretch based on these very inexplicit wordings. His use of the word "silo" could genuinely mean not a part of the MCU, but it could just as easily mean that it's an isolated section of the universe, something we already knew was true of the series before its canonicity was put into question. I don't think that quote changes very much about its status. It would be far better to keep the "standalone story within the MCU" with a note that addresses the dubious canonicity. I especially oppose the changing of the word 'within' to 'outside of', because that doesn't fix the issue at all. It just moves in the opposite direction in terms of positive claims. The goal here should be to avoid positive claims about canonicity when we have very ambiguous quotes like this. Rman41 (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This... is kind of surprising that you guys have shifted from this approach. Because this is more or less exactly what I've been proposing for months, obviously not including comments about the show being "related" to the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"We are siloed off [from the MCU]" doesn't sound like the series is not part of the MCU, it sounds like the series is "siloed off" from the films and is telling its own story separate from other projects. In my opinion there is no new information here. I definitely don't think we should go around removing the series from MCU articles or anything like that, but I would support adjusting the wording to make it clear that the series has few actual connections to the rest of the universe. Ultimately it seems likely that this series will be considered just as canon to the MCU as other Marvel TV shows (meaning not really), but for now we don't know that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine holding off on the larger changes I suggested, and clarifying here in the lead and MCU section (which could maybe still change its heading?) its relationship to the larger MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I think a note is the best way to handle this, since official statements from within the last few days contradict each other immensely and are very vague, but this is a bit too complicated and sidetracked from the lead. Largely, the series was still produced as, and does actually have a few references to the MCU; namely the appearance of Roxxon Corp. Rman41 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'We are siloed off' might be ambigious, the following seems pretty clear: 'We are not tied to the MCU. We are our own seperate thing.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHSyy8np4U&feature=youtu.be&t=46) Seems pretty clear that it isn't part of the MCU and even 'loosely connected' to the MCU is too strong of a wording. Sure, even 'not tied to' can be viewed as different from something like 'we are not part of', but even that's stretching it, to me. In my view, the interview I linked makes it clear that it is not part of the MCU, not even loosely connected. UnderIrae (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The thinking too was, as soon as "Marvel's" was removed from the title, it probably indicated very little connection, if at all. But yes, including some sort of note or something would be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, moderator on the MCU Wiki here. Just to say, a few things:

• The show was connected to Ghost Rider. Jeph Loeb made clear Ghost Rider was set in the same world as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (the MCU), thereby making Helstrom also MCU. While Ghost Rider did not go ahead, that doesn't change things, and Episode 1 even includes an apparent reference to that show as if it had gone ahead, with the Caretaker character (from Ghost Rider comics) referencing events he has been involved in over in Texas.
• Loeb even says in the above quote that these shows are treated as their own thing, not spin-offs - but are nonetheless the same world. It seems that has always been the attitude. Wikipedia currently puts it very nicely with, "It tells a standalone story within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)." And all Paul Zbyszewski has been saying is it doesn't tie into the MCU and does its own separate thing. When you're working from a position that Helstrom is officially set in the MCU and those quotes come along, particularly when the position has always been that it's standalone, they're not damning/explicit enough to completely overturn everything.
• There's the Roxxon Easter egg. Sure, some might want to argue that it's just a comics Easter egg that could be this show referencing Roxxon from the comics in its own way, but that seems unlikely given Roxxon has no particular relevance to this show beyond as a potential way to tie it to the other shows.
• I have only seen Episode 1, but towards the end, O'Harren's Scotch Whisky appears to be featured. I have been informed by someone who is further ahead than me that it is more clearly shown later in the show, though cannot confirm this myself yet. This is an MCU-specific Easter egg, something not featured in the comics definitely placed to tie it in with the rest of the MCU shows.
• Bonus: tweets like this and this.

Thanks.BEJT1 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if no source has explicitly confirmed that Helstrom is not set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I feel we can't jump the gun and say it is only "related" to it or something similar to that. I was all for this move, but after recounting the posts above, it doesn't appear to me that anyone involved (including Jeph Loeb, Paul Zbyszewski, etc.) is saying it is not in the MCU, just that it is merely it's own part of that universe that deals with a darker corner that isn't really explored by the films and other shows, as explained by Marvel themselves in why they removed "Marvel's" from the title so it wasn't in-line with searches for the rest of the content. As Paul Zbyszewski said, the show was "siloed off" from the rest of the MCU, meaning it was isolated to be its own sector, its own part of the franchise, as evident by the planned Adventure into Fear banner that went in flux when the Ghost Rider series was shelved and Marvel Television was shuttered. Putting any and all in-universe connections aside, there doesn't appear to be any constructive firm source close to the production of Helstrom confirming it is no longer an MCU series, just that it is standalone, as we've already listed it to be. I wouldn't say there's any need to include a note about the canonical status of the series as that delves into more technical and in-universe terms and we don't appear to have a source backing up any reason for an explanation outside of what can already be explained in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section on the page, which are minimal but present at the least. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also just add that I have been shown a screenshot that the San Francisco Tribune from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., with the same logo and everything (as discussed here, the papers are intentionally used as crossover pieces between the shows), appears in an episode, as well as New Orleans Gazette from Cloak & Dagger being shown, both tying it further into the MCU with MCU-only references. Edit: And The Dallas Record from Iron Man 2.BEJT1 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This may have the answer whether the series is part of the MCU or not. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added Zbyszewki's quotes. We already have about Roxxon, and the newspaper titles are such a thin connection, it's not something we really need to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that at least an edit just clarifying that Roxxon isn't the only connection, even just a mention of "other Easter eggs" would be relevant. Also of note, Alain Uy has also stated it's MCU. It seems very much that Paul Zbyszewski is just using the term "MCU" the way many do, to mean "the central bundle of MCU-branded content", effectively the brand "MCU" and not to describe the world itself the way it should be.BEJT1 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this. Firstly, as mentioned in that article linked by Kailash, Roxxon is a long-time comics entity, and the article as a whole reinforces that the show is not tied to the MCU and is in fact, its own separate thing. Secondly, production companies reuse assets all the time. The initial trailer for Morbius used both an image of Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and the Daily Bugle logo from his universe, while simultaneously using the Oscorp building from Andrew Garfield's universe. It does not seem like strong enough evidence to warrant the claim that they share the same universe.

Also, MCU defined "the way it should be" is unclear. From what I understand, a majority of the discussion surrounding the MCU is the shared universe and what falls into it. For a long time, shows were branded as part of the MCU, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. The show was stated by the showrunner not to be in the MCU and the show was not branded as such. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wiki protocol regarding MCU debate

The connection of this series to the MCU is a topic of debate. Based on the evidence provided above, is there enough to substantiate the series as being a part of the MCU? ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. Rather the opposite. E.g.: "'It's not part of the MCU,' showrunner Paul Zbyszeweski clarifies .... 'We are our own thing.'" and "Far from being a hindrance, the complete exclusion from the MCU made Zbyszewski's work easier."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• No, per above discussion and McCandlish above me. The use of a “multiverse” as evidence is also evidence enough to suggest any media is part of the MCU. Speculation is encouraged at Fandom. — HTGS (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Comment I don't know what to !vote with, but keeping the current a stand-alone story set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the lead, supported by the material in the body in "Development" and "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins", is accurate and correct based on the knowledge we have about the intent of the series pre-release, and then once it released, all of which is sourced. The discussion above doesn't add any new quotes/material that wasn't already known/covered when the previous consensus was formed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  The “not in the MCU” (explicitly stated) quote was not discussed, I don’t think. The notion that it’s in the MCU is based on WP:SYNTH, as no source on its own says what is in the article, while a few say the opposite. Further, meaning is applied to Zbyszewski’s quotes based off of a single quote from somebody else who was not with Marvel at the time of release, and his words are being twisted to imply that he meant to say it’s in the MCU, but stand-alone. That is not the case, however, as his words state explicitly that it is not in the MCU. The previous consensus was faulty and doesn’t form the basis for a strong precedent. The Development section makes no comment on the show’s alleged connection to the MCU. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, per discussion above. Wiki protocol is not ambiguous in this regard. There is to be NO synthesis of sources to support a conclusion not stated outright in any individual source. All reliable sources with inside knowledge do not support the conclusion that the show is set in or part of the MCU brand. ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• No - Not only is the conclusion that Helstrom is part of the MCU unsupportable in reliable sources, the disassociation of the two unambiguously is.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: This article should not definitively say that it is or is not part of the MCU. After looking at the relevant sources, they only include contradictory and vague statements from different people related to the production. They indicate varying intentions on how closely production should gear toward the MCU and how much creative independence was involved, but none of them explicitly comment on the fictional setting. To conclude that it definitively is or is not would be original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to grant this compromise, if the contradictory statements are seen as too ambiguous to say one or the other. To completely remove mention of the MCU would be wrong even according to the RS that do repeat the showrunner's claims, but perhaps a compromise that notes its ambiguous relation to the franchise, which would also be noted on related MCU pages that mention it (and they *should* mention it regardless). Rman41 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's included in List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Adventure into Fear which suggests it's part of the MCU. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

We should remove Adventure Into Fear from the MCU page or shift it to be listed as something that has been cancelled or reworked akin to Krypton’s section on the DC Extended Universe page. There is nothing contradictory here in terms of Helstrom’s place in the MCU — as many editors have pointed out, it unequivocally has no place in it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Helstrom aired, it cannot be classified completely the same way as something that was cancelled. Editors have pointed out both that and the opposite. It is not unequivocal. Rman41 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I side with Rman here. Do something similar to @Favre1fan93:'s suggestion here but keep the MCU TV series list in the infobox and note Helstrom's status in the list as ambiguous. — SirDot (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think that compromise is tenable because it’s upholding something which blatantly isn’t true. We have precedent on shows that are no longer part of the franchise they were intended to be in initially (which is arguably too generous of a way to describe Helstrom.) See the Krypton example. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Krypton also aired. It was initially intended to be part of the DCEU and was stated as such, but by the time it was released it was no longer classified that way. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I move that we change the page in accordance with the consensus from editors who came to participate in the RFC. The following will be enacted:

• The show be removed from all infoboxes tying it to the MCU, and any such infoboxes on the shows page will be altered to distinguish it from the MCU or removed outright.
• The only reference to the MCU will be that, though it was initially stated in some sources to be in the same world, this was not true by the time of release.
• Helstrom will be given the same treatment as Krypton on the DCEU page, in that its label, Adventure Into Fear, was cancelled and the show was reworked into a standalone, non-MCU release.

I will enact these changes by day’s end, giving time for comment. I believe consensus has been reached in accordance with Wikipedia procedure, and intend to honor the consensus. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChimaFan12: All changes will need to be sourced, you can't just add unsourced information to articles just because there is consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with InfiniteNexus here. Without a source confirming the stance, it can not be included as fact. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If you care to read this talk page as well as the sources I provided on the Helstrom page, this is well-sourced information. You can add the exact same sources to the other pages I edited, which I did not the time to do at the moment. But don’t come in here without reading a single thing we’ve said and act like it’s a sudden and unfair change. The previously existing pages went against the policy on SYNTH, so if you want to come at anyone for going against policy, there are a lot of fingers to go around. Anyways, since appropriate sourcing has been added, this can be considered done with. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I for one find the process you have been supervising to be flawed, especially since frequent MCU task force members like myself were not pinged about this in advance, despite being involved in a conversation on this matter two years ago, and I personally did not catch wind of this whole process as I was busy editing several other MCU articles. This is clearly not a resolved issue and not one individual can say it is so. There is no reliable sourcing that has been added in this article to disprove the series as being part of the MCU as a franchise, and even with the showrunner's statements, nothing has been officially stated by Disney or Marvel that confirm this is not part of the MCU, and there are limited in-universe details that lend themselves to debate on this, such as Roxxon, and the initial plans and connections to Ghost Rider and a larger sub-franchise. Noting it was initially developed for the MCU but connections were largely removed is key here and what is reliably sourced. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no interest in reading through years' worth of discussions, but I do know is one thing: the text you added was unsourced. By "unsourced" I don't mean there is no evidence for it, I mean the text you added was not accompanied by an inline citation, which is a requirement for all Wikipedia articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus- Okay I’ll make that adjustment soon. Thank you.

@Trailblazer101 literally just read this discussion and this article. It’s not year’s long and all the citations are there. It is explicitly not part of the MCU. That’s the truth and you did not need to be consulted.. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion of this topic above at #Is this still part of the MCU?. Being consulted would have been a courtesy on your part when wanting to weigh the opinions of other editors of this article, some (like myself) who have been editing it and other MCU articles for a good few years now, and, as this article remains covered and supported by the MCU task force, it should have been addressed in some manner to the task force members before claiming a consensus was made and stating this issue was over, which is clearly is not as others still conject with the claims you are firm in enforcing without reliable, adequate sourcing or an official acknowledgement from the studios other than the showrunner's. Your "truth" is highly subjective, and your attitudes and insistence on you being right raises some WP:OWNERSHIP concerns. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

okay. Go add to the conversation LOL. I’m not pretending to have ownership. To be honest, it seems as though you are. I’m confused how I’m raising ownership concerns, allegedly. The truth isn’t subjective, as you can see in the discussion and in accordance to Wiki policy, the consensus is there isn’t enough to substantiate that the show is currently part of the MCU. You can try to make a compelling argument. With the exception of the last couple of articles I edited to reflect the consensus here, everything has been well sourced. The facts I’m adding to the other articles are the same as the ones here, and the same sources apply. They’re literally in this thread. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)